View full case

ROBERT TAGUINOD v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

This case involves a petition for review filed by Robert Taguinod, the petitioner, seeking to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the decisions of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC).

The incident occurred on May 26, 2002, at the Rockwell Powerplant Mall parking area. Pedro Ang was driving his Honda CRV, while Robert Taguinod was driving his Suzuki Vitara. During the process of paying the parking fees, their vehicles accidentally touched each other, leading to an altercation between the complainant's wife and daughter and the petitioner.

As they were returning to their cars, the petitioner suddenly accelerated his vehicle and moved backward as if to hit them. Consequently, the complainant's vehicle was bumped by the petitioner's vehicle, causing damage to both vehicles. The complainant's vehicle sustained damages amounting to P57,464.66, which was partially paid by the insurance company.

An information for the crime of malicious mischief was filed against the petitioner. The MeTC found the petitioner guilty of malicious mischief and sentenced him to four months imprisonment. The case was appealed to the RTC, which affirmed the MeTC's decision. However, the CA partially granted the petitioner's appeal by reducing the penalty to 30 days imprisonment and also reducing the award of moral damages and attorney's fees.

Dissatisfied with the CA's decision, the petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court erred in finding the petitioner guilty of the crime of malicious mischief.

  2. Whether the trial court erred in awarding moral damages and attorney's fees to the private complainant.

RULING:

  1. The Court finds the first issue raised by the petitioner to be factual in nature. As such, the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses and the weight of evidence presented are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, unless there is a clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case.

  2. The trial court did not err in awarding moral damages and attorney's fees to the private complainant. The reason for the award, and the amounts awarded, are within the discretion of the trial court and will only be modified if they are clearly excessive or inadequate. In this case, the Court of Appeals already modified the amounts awarded by the trial court, reducing the moral damages and attorney's fees. The Court finds that the amounts awarded are reasonable and in line with prevailing jurisprudence.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case.

  • The reason for the award of moral damages and attorney's fees, as well as the amounts awarded, are within the discretion of the trial court and will only be modified if they are clearly excessive or inadequate.